"Who Shot JFK?" - Where is the mystery or conspiracy?

Over the last 50 years, people have come up with countless conspiracies about the JFK assassinations.

Some go even so far as to state ridiculous things such as the driver or Jackie shot JFK. One of the most absurd theories I came across yesterday where
someone claimed that JFK had a "device" planted into is head which was set-off by Jackie to make it "seem" like an assassination....which, obviously,
as is the case for many conspiracy theorists, allegedly was only a "staged event".

One of the earliest and most often asked "mysteries" is that Oswald allegedly couldn't have shot JFK, for whatever claimed reasons.

The closer I examine the JFK assassination, the less a mystery it really is. I am afraid to say that really NOTHING about it seems like a mystery or
conspiracy to me since the evidence and the events which happened (IN MY OPINION) are pretty consistent.

* Claim that it was impossible that Oswald shot JFK, or claims about the path of the bullet etc...NOTHING mysterious about it:

There is no reason to believe that Oswald was an "impossibly perfect" shot who could not have killed Kennedy

We know that Oswald shot THREE times.

The first bullet entirely missed.

The second bullet hit JFK in the back and exited at the throat, also injured Connally.

The third bullet hit JFK's head.

The fact that two bullets basically missed already discounts the theory that Oswald was an impossibly good shot and he couldn't have done it.

The autopsy and all the findings are entirely consistent with that the shooter/Oswald was located in the school book depository. One can trace the
path of the bullet(s) back, it's a straight line from where Oswald was hiding, the back of Kennedy, throat --> governor.

The fatal shot is also consistent with the autopsy and Oswald's location, with a bullet hitting the back and exiting the president's head. (Which is
*clearly* evidenced in the Zapruder film).

Any conspiracy theory involving Jackie, the driver or whoever would have to take the autopsy into account (which obviously must be faked so as to
conform to the "staged event")...not only would it need to take the autopsy into account, it would ALSO have to take the Zapruder film into account.
The film ALSO is consistent with that Oswald was hiding in the book depository and it's also consistent with the path of the bullet, there is no
mystery whatsoever.

Some argue that it was impossible that Oswald fired three shots in the time (4.8s - 5.6s between shots)...which is a ridiculous argument. We KNOW that
the first two shots actually missed and only the third one fatally hit.

Oswald had the "perfect" hide-out space with the president's car below parading very slow, presenting JFK with the back to him as a target with
plenty, plenty of time to fire the shots. I am not a weapon experts in the slightest but I can well picture that this would not pose a problem to
anyone who is halfway familiar with firearms like he was.

What I am saying...there is a 50 year old "conspiracy" but upon closer examination I don't see the mystery at all.

Thanks for sharing your views by opening a new thread on the "JFK dead 50 years death-watch" assembly line. I'd give you a flag and a star but my
driver just slowed and I'd better duck.

p.s. By the way, I agree with you. The "everyone but Oswald" theories leave out much of the incriminating evidence against Oswald, who made a bad
mistake when he shot JFK and likely realized it as soon as he ran, hid the rifle, ran down the stairs, and popped into the small cafeteria/lunchroom
that he was seen in moments later. He then ran right back to his home??? The man had no escape plan, no plans to leave the area, and should have been
in a car and driving within minutes of the killing (he didn't even have a car and had to grab a lift to work that morning, carrying "curtain
rods").

Thanks, I've never seen the interview with the woman who saw a bullet hole in the windshield. Does anyone have any modern tech analysis of any photo
or film showing the windshield, and what the conclusions were if such a photo exists? I've heard a bullet fragment may have hit the windshield, but
this woman is saying it was a hole going from front to back, which she saw close up (if she was leaning on the car).

I suggest you google E Howard Hunt, he admitted it, was jailed for it and was later pardoned and given 1 million dollars to be quiet by Nixon. I also
suggest you look for the pictures showing George Bush outside the book depository wearing an FBI wind breaker and have a quick look at the memo Hoover
sent which is in the FBI archive and exposes Bush as the CIA chief at the time, something we would otherwise not have known.

Perhaps you were being facetious in your op, it was the CIA who did it and part of the reason was the sacking of Allan Dulles and Kennedys promise to
"scatter the CIA to the winds" no amount of propaganda will ever change my mind on this and there seems to be a constant stream of it now.

If you want to discuss some of the other conspiratorial aspects of this then there is of course the promise to end the fed (bad for the City of London
based owners, including it is believed the Crown via the Bank of England) the fact that Dulles was a descendant of powerful figures within the Empire
(his parents were India based business owners during the days of empire) the other British figures deep within the CIA, such as Cameron aka the father
MONARCH mind control, educated in Glasgow, clue that ain't to do with butterflies.

Do try and remember that American intelligence in its current form was set up and trained by MI6 during the war years with Wall street types put in
management positions, also remember that the British traded Guam for Manhattan with the Dutch. It was the old guard, the blue bloods who did it to
preserve their power base. CIA pulled the trigger on their behalf

You can perhaps now see how interlinked they are, and always have been, with the Guardian disclosures eg 5 eyes, eg the Empire. Also There are more
subjects of the commonwealth than there are Christians.

Do also remember that Bush accepted order of the Bath, so perhaps that confirms his allegiance. Kennedy would have essentially switched the USAs
allegiance from Monarch to Pope and perhaps this was another motive, who knows. These are my thoughts anyways.

And PS i have no doubt that Oswald was involved in some way, he was CIA himself and had tried and failed to infiltrate Russian communism, either he
was the patsy or just one player on the team, who got caught.

There was an interesting documentary about the JFK assassination on Channel 4 the other week, I can't remember the name but if I do I'll link it
here.

The angles of the wounds show that there were two shooters, undoubtedly. The only question is who shot the final shot that blew his head off.

The conclusion of the documentary was that it was an accident by one of the Secret Service agents that were protecting JFK;

The first shot was shot by Oswald, which missed - the bullet ricocheted off the floor and made JFK shout "I'v been shot" The second one hit JFK in
the neck, going through the the passenger behind the driver - The third shot was supposedly shot from an Assault Rifle, which the secret service was
using on that day.

The evidence of the shot coming from the secret service car behind, was the fact that the bullets caused two different wounds, the first one was from
an FMJ bullet that Oswald used, and the third shot that blew off his head was a hollow point bullet that explodes on impact.
People smelt gun powder down on the street, it couldn't of been Oswald's - The car directly behind the Secret service vehicle smelt gun powder, and
he instantly knew it came from in front of him so he knew the Oswald lone gunner theory held no factual basis.

Also, the fact that the Secret Service stopped issuing their agents these Firearms(Assault Rifles) the following day shows maybe they are covering
something up.

Numerous amounts of people seen an agent in the vehicle behind JFK stand up with an assault rifle before the 3rd shot that killed JFK.

----

Anyway, my dinner brake is up, back to work. I'll try dig out the link to the documentary when I have time, it was very interesting. I'm not saying
this is how it happened, or that it was an accident, but the evidence they gave that pointed to the secret service agents firing the final shot was
brilliant. I personally think he was assassinated, probably by the secret service and this is just another cover up but brought into the modern age -
to keep people unaccountable.

Rising Against has some of the best threads concerning the subject. So good so, that
I would not even attempt a JFK thread without going through all of theirs first and probably asking permission to touch the subject.

You are over looking the point that when firing a rifle in rapid succession as Oswald did, the first shot tends to be the best. As the sniper cycles
and fires again, each shot after would be a rushed shot and much less accurate. In this case, Oswald seems to become a better shot as he rushes
through the next two shots using a rifle that was notorious for having a less than smooth bolt action reciever.

You are over looking the point that when firing a rifle in rapid succession as Oswald did, the first shot tends to be the best. As the sniper cycles
and fires again, each shot after would be a rushed shot and much less accurate. In this case, Oswald seems to become a better shot as he rushes
through the next two shots using a rifle that was notorious for having a less than smooth bolt action reciever.

I wouldn't call 5 secs "rapid succession". (Not that I am an expert at that, but the time seems 'reasonable' to me). But one thing is clear to me that
he was in an incredibly slick thought-out hiding spot which gave him all the time he wanted, even trying to shoot three times until the 3rd bullet
actually hit. The prez's car did NOT speed up, no-one ducked and covered within the car or rushed which would have made the two following shots MORE
difficult.

But instead, JFK must have been presented to him as a rather easy target in the same way as someone shooting ducks in a shooting booth at a fair.
Sorry, I do NOT see the big problem here.

You have absolutely no evidence to back that up, not one piece of evidence. In fact to be honest, your whole post is so ridiculous I doubt very much
that even you, as its author, believe it. I think you are just being provocative and controversial.

You are over looking the point that when firing a rifle in rapid succession as Oswald did, the first shot tends to be the best. As the sniper cycles
and fires again, each shot after would be a rushed shot and much less accurate. In this case, Oswald seems to become a better shot as he rushes
through the next two shots using a rifle that was notorious for having a less than smooth bolt action reciever.

Ah, you don't take into account that during the first shot Oswald's hands and body must have been shaking, his body had to be reacting to the
enormity of what he was doing and much of his nervous system probably rebelled against it (often our nervous systems are smarter than "we" are). So
the first shot goes wide, OK, Oswald must have instantly analyzed, calm down just a little, shoot between heartbeats, and aimed and shot twice more.
But like I said, he had a godawful escape plan, which is one point for the "other than Oswald" posters. He was a very stupid man in many ways.
Curtain rods? Lee, get serious.

ok OP, if he was shot in the back, and a bullet shot through the windshield from the front, then which was Oswald who was in a break room drinking a
Coke at the exact time the shooting happened, while 2 shooters unleashed 9 shots from front and "behind". It really isn't a mystery, yea it isn't
a crazy conspiracy with a bomb in his head, it's just that we have no official word on who the shooters were, but who cares who they were, it was an
inside/outside job. The question is, what organization sent out the command to kill JFK and which reason. His questioning information on UFOs? Because
he was for the people and not a sell out? We will never truly know, just like 9/11. They put out an official statement and in 100 years people won't
care, they will fall asleep learning about it in our government made history books.

You are over looking the point that when firing a rifle in rapid succession as Oswald did, the first shot tends to be the best. As the sniper cycles
and fires again, each shot after would be a rushed shot and much less accurate. In this case, Oswald seems to become a better shot as he rushes
through the next two shots using a rifle that was notorious for having a less than smooth bolt action reciever.

Ah, you don't take into account that during the first shot Oswald's hands and body must have been shaking, his body had to be reacting to the
enormity of what he was doing and much of his nervous system probably rebelled against it (often our nervous systems are smarter than "we" are). So
the first shot goes wide, OK, Oswald must have instantly analyzed, calm down just a little, shoot between heartbeats, and aimed and shot twice more.
But like I said, he had a godawful escape plan, which is one point for the "other than Oswald" posters. He was a very stupid man in many ways.
Curtain rods? Lee, get serious.

I cannot believe that anyone who has seriously looked into the JFK assasination with any degree of intelligence can come to the conclusion that Lee
Harvey Oswald was the shooter?

Your assumption that he was able to make those 3 shots with the 40.2" Mannlicher-Carcano bolt action rifle and become more accurate on his second and
third shots (all within 6 seconds, which has been proven impossible by top marksmen) is just as ridiculous as the Warren Commission which was a
whitewash to cover the tracks of all those involved. Oswald was what he said he was a 'patsy'! LBJ, Bush, and TPTB Corporations were behind this and
there were several shooters!

'The Magic Bullet' was the most stupid ridiculous theory ever presented and yet they expect us to believe it as fact - even though the bullet was
undamaged like it had NEVER been fired!

I saw the bit explaining he had bought "curtain rods" to work that day, as testified by the man who was his neighbour, giving him a lift to work
that day. To spruce up the decor or something!

In seriousness though, I always feel saddened when I read the threads about JFK, in a similar way to how I feel when reading threads about 9/11. The
reason is that with the invention of the internet, with loads of info at your fingertips, you feel that you suddenly know something. Fact is, you
probably don't. It is for this reason that I rarely contribute to those threads, although I do find the comments others have to make interesting and
thought provoking. After all, on ATS we get a chance to discuss things with people who will at least entertain what we have to say.

If we were investagative journalists or something akin to them, we would be looking for primary sources as best evidence. These can include many
things, witness testimony is not always cited as primary source. In this case, the limousine, the bullets and bullet pieces, and the body of JFK are
all primary sources. What else can truly be considered a primary source? Can or could the filmed archive of the event still be considered a true
primary source? After 50 years? after 50 hours even?

Years ago I looked a lot at the autopsy report, showing the graphic pictures and findings of professional people, and subsequent revisiting of the
evidence. You would think that this would be a great source of valuable information. Maybe it is. The fact that JFK was whisked away from Bethesda and
flown back to DC for the autopsy gives rise to questions.

The fact that in 1975, the United States President's Commission on CIA Activities within the United States was asked to review the previous findings
is interesting. The panel included Nelson Rockefeller and Ronnie Reagan. The panel was also known as "The Rockefeller Commission"

Any evidence can be tampered with, any document doctored, and any human witness bought or bumped off. The internet only normally contains this
evidence after it has gone through a number of previous "owners"

I suppose what I am trying to say is we can postulate and cite evidence and links all day long but it is probably in vain. The hyenas got there first.
If you swirl a stick around in a bath full of mud and water for 50 years, you get just that, a bath full of muddy water.

For a long time, I believed in a conspiracy to murder JFK. I read, researched, viewed evidence, photos and witness testimony for countless hours. I
soaked in everything I could trying to come to my own conclusion about what happened that day.

What I've determined, what I personally believe, is that there are a few possibilities, and they largely depend on whether you believe the Zapruder
film was altered. If it wasnt altered, then there were indeed 2 shots that did all the damage, and they came from the back. Here's why:

- IMMEDIATELY after JFK emerges from the sign, both he and Governor Connally react to something. Clearly, Kennedy has been shot here. At the SAME TIME
as Kennedy abruptly raises his hands to his throat, reacting to the shot, one can see Connally make a jerky motion with his arms, startled or shocked.
This isnt as apparent in slo-mo versions of the film since it blends in rather easily, but watch the z-film at full speed. Several times. They BOTH
react to being hit at the very same time. The "magic" bullet isnt as magical as people make it out to be, there's no great mystery about a piece of
solid metal being able to go through soft tissue.

- The headshot does not cause a back and to the left motion as has been drilled into our brains. Additionally, the back of his head was not blown out.
The headshot at first results in a slight forward motion, followed by a violent backwards motion. Almost like a spring. Slight forward, violently
back. When the head is struck, the right upper side comes apart, ejecting blood and brain matter. This matter is propelled upward and forward, with a
noticeably large chunk of presumably skull being readily apparent. (This is probably the harper fragment). It, too, flies upward and slightly forward.

It's as simple as that. Both shots are visible on the z-film. The effects of both shots are clearly visible on the z-film. Bullet wounds do not cause
a large object like a human body to violently change positions. To suggest that the rearward motion JFK makes after being struck in the head is from a
bullet wound is to discount the laws of motion. Unless said bullet is closer to the size of an artillery shell than a rifle bullet. If any shooter
fired a projectile at JFK with such force as to cause the rearward motion we see in the Z-film, it's unlikely he would have escaped, since the recoil
from firing the projectile would have been just as extreme.

Is all of this to say that Oswald acted alone? No. I think that's more debateable. But I DONT think anyone that accepts the z-film as being authentic
can argue that shots didnt come from the back or that there were more than 2 shots causing wounds.

Bullet wounds do not cause a large object like a human body to violently change positions. To suggest that the rearward motion JFK makes after being
struck in the head is from a bullet wound is to discount the laws of motion.

I'm not sure that is strictly true, well, not according to the Rockefeller Commission analysis:

So if it was a conspiracy as so many imply..we have the old, classic problem again:

Why "stage an event which would require to

* fake the footage (why even produce Zap. film IN THE FIRST PLACE???)
* confiscate ALL photos and additional footage
* threat and silent ALL witnesses
* synchronize in a magical way the reported and documented (film, photos, witness accounts) evidence with the actual happenings
* fake the autopsy (and make it so that it magically matches the "fake" story of the shooter)

IS THIS LIKELY AND PLAUSIBLE?

No! Because there would've (probably) been countless ways to kill JFK without all the media attention, somewhere with no publicity, no witnesses, no
photos, no films...not STAGE an event in front of 10000s of people? How does that make sense?

Don't tell me there was no way for "someone" to kill someone in a "car accident" or a "heart attack"...without all the unneeded problems which a
"staged event" would automatically create.

++

Example: Let's take the theory that the driver or Jackie killed him. So..now you will face a HUGE problem having to doctor all the evidence, films
etc. and what people saw not to the mention the autopsy report to hide this fact. (Obviously, a bullet cannot come from behind if someone would have
killed him from front or from the side etc.)

Bullet wounds do not cause a large object like a human body to violently change positions. To suggest that the rearward motion JFK makes after being
struck in the head is from a bullet wound is to discount the laws of motion.

I'm not sure that is strictly true, well, not according to the Rockefeller Commission analysis:

It all sounds very complicated if you read it, but essentially says the shot caused a nervous reaction stiffening and causing a "seizure" like
reaction in his body.

Which is fine, because if this is what caused the violent backwards motion (and its one of the theories I've read several times) it means that the
bullet impact itself did NOT. And that's all I'm driving at. The actual momentum/kinetic energy transfer from a projectile to the head of the
President would NOT cause a violent backwards motion of the entire upper body. The nervous system reaction, the ejection of materials from the skull,
etc are all of course debateable, I do not hold fast to any one explanation. What I do hold fast to is that a bullet strike from the front right would
not cause the backwards left motion seen in the film.

I don't think that your list of things is implausible, or even difficult to do really. Money talks and dead men tell no secrets and all that.
However, you have kind of alluded to what I said earlier. There is no piece of evidence, or conjecture you, I, or anyone else can put forward that
will move the truth forward one bit. In my opinion. Not unless you were there, and had kept your mouth shut for 50 years and present a piece of
"virgin" evidence, that has truly had no opportunity to have been tampered with.
Don't get me wrong or anything, it is just one of those stories of an event that happened in the past, that will prove near impossible to get to the
bottom of. Doesn't make it right, doesn't make it fair. It just is.
But, how would you bump of the man in a way no one or very few people would know about? I can't think of any given he was POTUS. Putting it at the
total opposite end of that spectrum kind of makes it the same thing. Too many people, too many views, too many cooks etc.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.